Which of the following is a recognized benefit of Tort coverage over No Fault?

Tort coverage, as opposed to No Fault coverage, allows the insured party to have the option to pursue legal action against the at-fault driver in the event of an accident. This means that if an individual suffers significant damages—such as severe injuries, lost wages, or pain and suffering—they can file a lawsuit to seek compensation beyond the limits imposed by their insurance policy.

This right to sue is a fundamental feature of tort liability systems, which provide individuals the opportunity to hold other parties accountable for their actions and recover damages accordingly. In a No Fault system, on the other hand, individuals typically relinquish the right to sue for non-economic damages in exchange for quicker and more straightforward claims processes. This trade-off can diminish the compensation received for serious injuries since recovery is often limited strictly to out-of-pocket expenses.

While the other options, such as faster claims settlement, higher accident benefit limits, and coverage for single vehicle accidents, have their own merits, they do not represent the primary and recognized advantage of Tort coverage. Those benefits may correlate more closely with No Fault coverage or be context-dependent. Hence, the aspect of having the option to go to court distinctly sets Tort coverage apart as a significant benefit.